Hi Mete first off, I respect yours and Thomas' opinions. Of course we will end up having to agree to differ. In this forum really we are just influencing Meor, M Yusuf et al. in the work they do - they can choose whichever method they want of course, we can only give ideas. I really don't mind which solution they choose (honestly!).
I don't expect what I say here to affect Thomas and hence Unicode, as Thomas already has long-thought-out, well-formed and detailed plans of his own in this regard. > >The other is that this solution, as I understand it, depends on OpenType > >capability font rendering to work. > > It doesn't depend on OpenType capability. OpenType is just one of the font > technologies you can use to build fonts that can render complex Arabic. You > could surely use any other technology you wish to use. Although the font > technology you are using will probably have to be advanced enough to do > certain things such as contexual substitutions, etc. OpenType is just one > of the technologies which is able to do these. > Thomas and yourself are dismissive of older technology. However, most of the people in the world who are inclined to view the quran on their PC or what-have-you cannot afford to pay MS for their copy of Windows. Why should they be excluded from the solution? Who are we doing this for? > > We are not proposing to glue two glyphs together. You can compare this > non-texual character to the ZWNJ (zero width non joiner) character in a way > (although they are still quite different) in the fact that they are both > non-texual. I think you are confusing this with Tom's other proposal, which > is to declare canonival equivalence between a fatha+fatha sequence and > fathatan, and so forth. That is a seperate issue. I think we haven't made > this clear so I apologize. This non-texual character is a seperate request > regardless of whether there is a request to declare canonival equivalence > between a fatha+fatha sequence and fathatan, and so forth. Even if there is > no canonival equivalence declared between a fatha+fatha sequence and > fathatan this additional codepoint is needed. > I do understand what you mean, I'm exaggerating a bit to make a point. But the fact remains that if this proposal goes through, then how can I represent two fathas side-by-side? Granted, this will not come up often, but if you look at arabic grammar books, tajweed books, sarf books etc it's quite possible that this would be a requirement. M Yousif made this point a long time ago. wassalaam abdulhaq
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://lists.arabeyes.org/mailman/listinfo/general
